I'm trying to look more into various ethical and meta-ethical philosophies. Basically, I'm trying to find the counter to consequenticalism. Consequenticalism is ethics determined by the consequences of your actions (if you try to help someone, but ultimately end up harming them, it is immoral. Basically, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"). Naturally I would assume that a moral philosophy based on one's intentions would be called intentionalism, however, that has been claimed by holocaust debates (and definition nazis won't let me change it, lol).

So the closest I've found is Deontologicalism, however, that seems less focused on "intent" as it is on "rules." According to wiki, "deontology is an approach to ethics that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules."

I'm looking for an ethical philosophy that would say something is moral if it breaks the rules, but has good intentions (regardless of the consequences of the action).

there pretty much is only deontology or teleology(consequence) in different forms, like kantian for deo and util for tele. no moral theory is going to just involve intentions because there is not much of a point.(you want to feel good without doing good?) but if you're thinking about breaking a rule for good reasons, then you are a consequentialist not a deontologist.

so i guess the answer to your question of whether there is a moral theory that just deals with intentions then i would say no. if you want to shoot into a crowd of innocents killing and injuring a few but not getting the serial killer you were trying to stop, you'll have to invent your own moral theory to feel good afterward. (my example for breaking the rules with good intentions and then it end up being bad.)

if state farm has perfected teleportation technology why do they still sell car insurance?

At 10/5/2011 7:03:04 PM, kogline wrote:there pretty much is only deontology or teleology(consequence) in different forms, like kantian for deo and util for tele. no moral theory is going to just involve intentions because there is not much of a point.(you want to feel good without doing good?) but if you're thinking about breaking a rule for good reasons, then you are a consequentialist not a deontologist.

But consequentialism depends on the results of the actions. If one were to break a rule, with the intent of doing good, but fails and ultimately does bad, then consequentialism will veiw that negatively on a moral and ethical scale.

so i guess the answer to your question of whether there is a moral theory that just deals with intentions then i would say no. if you want to shoot into a crowd of innocents killing and injuring a few but not getting the serial killer you were trying to stop, you'll have to invent your own moral theory to feel good afterward. (my example for breaking the rules with good intentions and then it end up being bad.)

Really? I guess I just find it odd that it hasn't been considered by someone yet. I mean, we have an ethical philosophy of following the rules, but not one for intentions of doing good.

when i was taking moral philosoph i always thought of deontology(rules are rules) as being a warped consequentialist view. basically that the reason you have to follow the moral rules like no murder/rape at all times with no exceptions, is because if you allow it for special circumstances there will be a slippery slope leading to widespread immorality that will lead to a worse society. so both deal with intentions to an extent imo, but the i think what you have a problem with on both of them is that actions>intentions. im sure people have thought of moral philosophies where intentions>actions, but did not feel they were justified.

if state farm has perfected teleportation technology why do they still sell car insurance?

At 10/5/2011 7:35:46 PM, kogline wrote:when i was taking moral philosoph i always thought of deontology(rules are rules) as being a warped consequentialist view. basically that the reason you have to follow the moral rules like no murder/rape at all times with no exceptions, is because if you allow it for special circumstances there will be a slippery slope leading to widespread immorality that will lead to a worse society. so both deal with intentions to an extent imo, but the i think what you have a problem with on both of them is that actions>intentions. im sure people have thought of moral philosophies where intentions>actions, but did not feel they were justified.

I just imagine that there would be a theory for both sides of that (one for consequences and one for intentions).

Though I think it is safe to say that everyone is a hybrid of the two to some degree. I mean, an extreme consequentialist (meaning only the consequences are considered) would that if someone crossed the road at night, wearing all black and you hit and killed this person with your car, that would be just as morally wrong as stalking and killing someone (both result in 1 dead human). I suppose their might be a few people that believe that (though they probably just do it for the attention), but most are on a sliding scale.

So, you should act in a way that is most likeliy to give the best results, rather than whether it gives good or bad results.

For example, If you save the life of a man, and he or she ends up being a murderer, then your action would still be justified, since the probability of the occurrence is rare, and given your limited information, there was no way you would be able to predict this.

At 10/5/2011 7:13:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:But consequentialism depends on the results of the actions. If one were to break a rule, with the intent of doing good, but fails and ultimately does bad, then consequentialism will veiw that negatively on a moral and ethical scale.

don't think so.

how do you figure out what course of action is "best"(/ends in the best consequences but by Theorizing).. and then acting on those understandings to see if they hold true or if you need better ones.

Sure.. Hitting the jukebox might not at the end of the day be the "best" way to get it to work... but you're trying to get it to work.. and, given your limited understanding.. and prior experience.. it seems like that might work.

And if it Does work.. and gets you that consequence nice and regular.. then "hitting the jukebox" might be a method you rely on in acting in the future... and that's Great! :)

if it doesn't.. or does temporarily but also seem to make the problems more chronic.. then you try to come to a better understanding of the facts of the matter so that you can act way that might be more reliable in getting a working jukebox.

Now... This process of figuring out what'll work.. and going with your current understanding has to be expected in consequential ethics.. and you, as a person, could hardly be called "bad" for acting upon your understandings of how the world works (though you might be called stupid)... Your actions aren't as "good" as other potential actions.. they might even be Detrimental to your goals/hoped for consequences... but You're not termed Bad.. your action is evidently bad... and you ought to/would abandon it when you come to understand that.. and seek a better method, perhaps through a better understanding.

"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."

At 10/5/2011 7:13:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:But consequentialism depends on the results of the actions. If one were to break a rule, with the intent of doing good, but fails and ultimately does bad, then consequentialism will veiw that negatively on a moral and ethical scale.

don't think so.

how do you figure out what course of action is "best"(/ends in the best consequences but by Theorizing).. and then acting on those understandings to see if they hold true or if you need better ones.

Sure.. Hitting the jukebox might not at the end of the day be the "best" way to get it to work... but you're trying to get it to work.. and, given your limited understanding.. and prior experience.. it seems like that might work.

And if it Does work.. and gets you that consequence nice and regular.. then "hitting the jukebox" might be a method you rely on in acting in the future... and that's Great! :)

if it doesn't.. or does temporarily but also seem to make the problems more chronic.. then you try to come to a better understanding of the facts of the matter so that you can act way that might be more reliable in getting a working jukebox.

Now... This process of figuring out what'll work.. and going with your current understanding has to be expected in consequential ethics.. and you, as a person, could hardly be called "bad" for acting upon your understandings of how the world works (though you might be called stupid)... Your actions aren't as "good" as other potential actions.. they might even be Detrimental to your goals/hoped for consequences... but You're not termed Bad.. your action is evidently bad... and you ought to/would abandon it when you come to understand that.. and seek a better method, perhaps through a better understanding.

at the end of the day this Pragmatic, Empirical, undertaking is the best way of figuring out what's "best"/better..

So.. Engaging in that process (even if it may not prove "best" right away) is Better than Not! (that is it leads to better consequences)..

and so is Good :)

"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."

At 10/5/2011 3:45:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:I'm trying to look more into various ethical and meta-ethical philosophies. Basically, I'm trying to find the counter to consequenticalism. Consequenticalism is ethics determined by the consequences of your actions (if you try to help someone, but ultimately end up harming them, it is immoral. Basically, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"). Naturally I would assume that a moral philosophy based on one's intentions would be called intentionalism, however, that has been claimed by holocaust debates (and definition nazis won't let me change it, lol).

So the closest I've found is Deontologicalism, however, that seems less focused on "intent" as it is on "rules." According to wiki, "deontology is an approach to ethics that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules."

I'm looking for an ethical philosophy that would say something is moral if it breaks the rules, but has good intentions (regardless of the consequences of the action).

Anyone know of what that might be?

I would think the closest thing would be any rule-based, absolutist system... for example, killing is wrong regardless of who or why you killed. Rule-based utilitarianism comes to mind (though I think it's Smart who argues that RBU dissolves into act-based utilitarianism). But any absolutist moral system will suffice.

He's trying to have it be okay to break rules i.e. not have rules, JCMT, that won't work.

Your best bet to have your pansy ethics that are committed to no rules and don't care about consequences formalized is to whip up a flavor of virtue ethics. People who intend what you do ("Have the virtues" of "compassion" or "obedience" or wtfever) are good, regardless of negligience, recklessness, failure to think up what kind of rules should govern their behavior, etc.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 10/6/2011 2:09:50 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:He's trying to have it be okay to break rules i.e. not have rules, JCMT, that won't work.

Your best bet to have your pansy ethics that are committed to no rules and don't care about consequences formalized is to whip up a flavor of virtue ethics. People who intend what you do ("Have the virtues" of "compassion" or "obedience" or wtfever) are good, regardless of negligience, recklessness, failure to think up what kind of rules should govern their behavior, etc.

Thank you, what I was looking for was called Virtue Ethics. Oddly enough, Wiki seemed to only contrast Deontology and Consequentialism, and seemed to leave out Virtue Ethics.

At 10/5/2011 7:42:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:Though I think it is safe to say that everyone is a hybrid of the two to some degree. I mean, an extreme consequentialist (meaning only the consequences are considered) would that if someone crossed the road at night, wearing all black and you hit and killed this person with your car, that would be just as morally wrong as stalking and killing someone (both result in 1 dead human).

I am an "extreme consequentialist" but I do not believe they're necessarily "just as wrong"

Responsibly/Awarely Driving a car at night is an act which is not very apt to cause dead humans..

It's an action who's consequences, over-all, often seem as though they make the act beneficial to me.

Granted.. there is the possibility of someone jumping out in front of my car wearing black and my unavoidably hitting them.. which is a not-so-nice potential thing which may come of my act...but there are many, much more likely, things to come of my act which I care about as well.. the unlikelihood of that Other possibility makes it weigh less when I consider how I ought to act.

If you plan on murdering someone.. and attempt to carry out the acts to do it.. then your'e acting in a way that'll likely kill someone.

if killing that someone is a "bad" thing to happen... then your act (which is designed around doing that thing and doesn't seem like it'll probably fulfill Better things.. like freeing the your family from the guy's enslavement) is a bad thing to do... b/c it would Very probably lead to "Bad" consequences.. and no counter-balancing good ones.

"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."

At 10/5/2011 7:42:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:Though I think it is safe to say that everyone is a hybrid of the two to some degree. I mean, an extreme consequentialist (meaning only the consequences are considered) would that if someone crossed the road at night, wearing all black and you hit and killed this person with your car, that would be just as morally wrong as stalking and killing someone (both result in 1 dead human).

I am an "extreme consequentialist" but I do not believe they're necessarily "just as wrong"

Responsibly/Awarely Driving a car at night is an act which is not very apt to cause dead humans..

It's an action who's consequences, over-all, often seem as though they make the act beneficial to me.

Granted.. there is the possibility of someone jumping out in front of my car wearing black and my unavoidably hitting them.. which is a not-so-nice potential thing which may come of my act...but there are many, much more likely, things to come of my act which I care about as well.. the unlikelihood of that Other possibility makes it weigh less when I consider how I ought to act.

If you plan on murdering someone.. and attempt to carry out the acts to do it.. then your'e acting in a way that'll likely kill someone.

if killing that someone is a "bad" thing to happen... then your act (which is designed around doing that thing and doesn't seem like it'll probably fulfill Better things.. like freeing the your family from the guy's enslavement) is a bad thing to do... b/c it would Very probably lead to "Bad" consequences.. and no counter-balancing good ones.

Should's should come Before actions.. based upon your understanding of things..

Given 'dead human' is a bad consequence...If you Understood that that guy would be there in the road at 830 pm, on that night, wearing all black..Then it would be a bad Idea to go driving down there.. at that time.

That is.. It ought not be done.

If you look back on the consequence you might say.. Yeah.. that sucks.

but Should's are based upon Current understandings of how Reality lines up with Good and Bad...

and Carefully Driving a car at night, in my general understanding.. can often line up with Good consequences.. Moreso than bad.

The particular consequence of a person dying is "bad".. but Whether an act "should/shouldn't" be done is based upon an understanding of how potential acts line up with "good/bad".

And to say the person Shouldn't have driven at night b/c they ended up hitting that guy is silly... and w/o support.

IF you were to say they Disregard relevant facts of reality.. like that they're a Half-blind old person.. and That contributed to those bad consequences.. then they were negligent.

If they Figured there'd be people in the street wearing black.. but sped by anyways.. then they clearly just don't operate on the same values that You do.. their evaluation of 'right/wrong' is different.

what Should you do here when their right/wrong evaluations are different?

Well.. if they get away with being so cruel (which you think is bad) w/o punishment... then they'll probably be more likely to do so again.

Now Should you punish them?.. Well you don't want them doing such things.. and if you don't punish them they'll probably be more likely to do it again.. so that's some reason to punish them..Unless there's counter-balancing reasons Not to punish them.. Like maybe you Severely dislike punishing people for some reason.. then it makes sense to punish them.. You Ought to.

"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."

At 10/6/2011 2:09:50 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:He's trying to have it be okay to break rules i.e. not have rules, JCMT, that won't work.

Your best bet to have your pansy ethics that are committed to no rules and don't care about consequences formalized is to whip up a flavor of virtue ethics. People who intend what you do ("Have the virtues" of "compassion" or "obedience" or wtfever) are good, regardless of negligience, recklessness, failure to think up what kind of rules should govern their behavior, etc.

Wouldn't a no-rules AND non-consequentialist ethical system be necessarily non-cognitive as well?